• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

About Stomp matches

Not particularly. It would depend on the applications and potency of said major ability.

Obviously, things like Legends Continuity level mindhax, passive hax that nulls anything the other opponent can do, or higher-dimensional powers that outpace anything the opponent can do are an opposite side of the same coin, and would be considered an unfair advantage for their own reasons.
 
I was saying that the stomp rules, not on the winning side, but on the losing side. Characters like Shibushi who have one major ability and that's it, are favored by those rules. The number of ways to win shouldn't matter
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
I was saying that the stomp rules, not on the winning side, but on the losing side. Characters like Shibushi who have one major ability and that's it, are favored by those rules. The number of ways to win shouldn't matter
Click to expand...
Actually it's the opposite since they will be able to face only opponents who also have a strong opening

so they will have less victories
 
@Iap:

There is a difference, though.

A character only having one ability that can net them the win, against another who has numerous means to kill them, means they only have one possibility of winning the match. That is easily what should be considered a stomp, especially if that one ability is something they aren't guaranteed to use.

Meanwhile, if both characters have several ways to win, then they're on very even footing with each other. At that point, one combatant's in-character decisions aren't going to suddenly make nonexistent the fact that they have plenty of ways to win the fight, nor do they suddenly give the other character the ability to slap them down with contemptuous ease in every possible scenario save for one. (which is the case in Example 1)
 
I mostly disagree with this.

A character can lose through their personality and not being willing to use their full potential, just look at any Gilgemesh match. Losing due to this doesn't make it a stomp any more than a character outskilling/outthinking the other does; they lose because of a character flaw, not because the match is inherently unfair.

Yes, sometimes a character can't use powers in a combat situation. However, sometimes it's just unlikely for them to use them. That doesn't make it a stomp.

A stomp is not when a match is "unfair". It's when a character has no way of winning. If you want to define stomps as any match that is 'unfair' you can twist that massively vague definition to declare practically any match a stomp. In no way is a tool/power a character doesn't always use in combat is comparable to something along the lines of an AP/Speed/Haxstomp where there is quite literally no chance for retaliation.

I also don't like adding arbitrary rules and extending our definition of a stomp thread as I will bet money on any new rules being abused to high heaven for people to declare matches with outcomes they don't like as stomps. It will make enforcement on less of a case-by-case basis and more interpreting rules repeatedly to see if they apply.
 
@Dragoo

Gilgamesh had multiple ways to win all those matches and had a quite decent chance of winning all of them, so it's a very bad exemple
 
Overlord775 said:
@Dragoo
Gilgamesh had multiple ways to win all those matches and had a quite decent chance of winning all of them, so it's a very bad exemple
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're talking about when reffering to 'those matchups'. I'm talking about Gilgamesh in general as an example of a character who holds back from using their full power. I could replace him with any other generic overconfident villain.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
My agreement still lies strongly with Kepe and Assalt.
Click to expand...
Kep's argument mentions using abilities that are "ridiculously unlikely".

However such extremes are hardly ever the case. There are, more often, matches where the use of an ability is just not that common compared to powers that wouln't win them the match.

And again, the definition of a stomp is any match where a character cannot wi. I can guarentee you there are hardly any characters who have abilities used so seldom that it would be indistinguishable from this, at which point I'd just say to handle it case-by-case instead of placing all these matches under an umbrella.

This is the same situation as the "how many times higher AP do you need to one-shot" thread. We cannot define how unlikely an ability is to consider the match a stomp for rules, so a case-by-case analysis is perferable.

Characters, fictional or not, are not often static beings that consistently act one way. Treating them as such is a disservice to the characters themselves.
 
Those extremes, those mathes where a chracter has only an astronimically low chance to win, are the only matches that would be classifies as stomp.

people have and will continue to exploit the "Tecnically there's a win condiction" to make stomps matches be added if changes aren't made
 
Overlord775 said:
Those extremes, those mathes where a chracter has only an astronimically low chance to win, are the only matches that would be classifies as stomp.
people have and will continue to exploit the "Tecnically there's a win condiction" to make stomps matches be added if this doesn't change
Click to expand...
"Astronomically low chance"

I feel like you're exaggerating there a bit. Not every match were a character loses due to not using an ability enough are the chances "astronomically low". I don't see why it's necessary to add it to rules when we already judge matches like that on a case by case basis.

Even then your rule makes no mention of likelyhood, it just says Out of Character, which can mean many, many things.

If your point is that people will abuse the system regardless, there isn't that solid of a foundation for your rule.
 
Overlord775 said:
people have and will continue to exploit the "Tecnically there's a win condiction" to make stomps matches be added
Click to expand...
By the same token, I can easily say that people have and will continue to exploit the "this character dies too hard, this is a stomp" reasoning to prevent their favorite characters from gaining losses.

Which is definitely a thing that happens, and is not something that should be ignored. But it also isn't a reason to add arbitrary rules as a means of trying to prevent it. Just like your example isn't a reason to add similar rules for the sake of avoiding it.
 
@MrKing

Just because a character has more ways to win does not mean they are more likely. That is flawed. Versatility does not equate to competency, although I am unsure of a better way to phrase that.

Look at Ashe. She has her Golden Bullets, and to a lesser extent her Fetch Mirrors. She was wins against both Medaka, and Kars (although the latter still hasn't been added). They are pretty even on the likely hood of eachother winning, despite the other 2 being far more versatile. A man with 1 knife vs a man with many knives of various functions does not mean the man with many knives is any more likely to win.

And back to the character to is partially the cause of this thread, Momo Momozono is almost the epitome of this. She has one trick that she can use to take out far more versatile characters.

In essence: More ways to win =/= more likely to win
 
I mean at the end of the day, majority rules. I am not about to get into wall of text squabbling match over everyone's opinion of a stomp because no one can actually agree with a solid definition. It'll basically be "my opinion's better than yours". Seeing as me, Kepe and Assalt's comments do have many agreements, we can count that as people who agree with our definition of a stomp, and there are those who agree with yours. As such I shall wait. Either way, this is all subjective at the end of the day.
 
Dragonmasterxyz said:
I mean at the end of the day, majority rules. I am not about to get into wall of text squabbling match over everyone's opinion of a stomp because no one can actually agree with a solid definition.
Click to expand...
Seeing as we already have a solid definition described here, I don't really see the issue to begin with.

My issue is not with defining a stomp, it's with needlessly expanding our established definition to include more and more stuff.
 
Because, some people think that definition is not enough, as such this thread was made. If the definition was perfect, no one would have issues with it. Both ideas have flaws. It depends on what people overall decide here is what matters.

For example I agree with Kepe and Assalt. however King and/or Lap may agree with you. Depends on what people think.
 
Dargoo Faust said:
"Astronomically low chance"

I feel like you're exaggerating there a bit. Not every match were a character loses due to not using an ability enough are the chances "astronomically low". I don't see why it's necessary to add it to rules when we already judge matches like that on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...
Ban vs Momo is an exemple of what i mean

Ban's litteral only chance to win is to istantly use Zero Sign, which is extremely OoC character for him do to against a random opponent, and on top of that he only has a 50% of winning even if he does that as Momo's seal is though based too.

if he tries anything else or even has 1 second thought he will just get sealed 100% of the time

So the chances of Ban winning are borderline none, but yet people argue the match isn't a stomp because of the teoretical winning scenario
 
Or simply, because people have different definitions of "stomps".

for some people, only if a character has absolutely no way in hell to eve stand a chance at winning is a stomp.

For others, any "unfair" match up, or fight in which one of the fighters has a white low possibilities of winning would count a stomp.

I don't think we'll ever reach a concrete solution to this "stomp" problem because of this.
 
Overlord775 said:
Ban's only chance to win is to istantly use Zero Sign, which is extremely OoC character for him do to against a random opponen, and on top of that he only has a 50% of winning even if he does that as Momo's seal is though based too
Click to expand...
If he has never used the ability on the start of a match, then he has no way of winning and therefore the match is a stomp.

If he has used the ability once or twice at the start of a match, it's simply unlikely for him to use it and the match is just decisive.

Case-by-case basis. No both situations are equally valid, and are dependent on the characters and not a general rule.

@Dragon If your point is to just leave it to a majority vote that doesn't advance the argument in any way. We should try reaching a consensus first before we shrug our shoulders and put it to a vote.
 
> I will bet money on any new rules being abused to high heaven for people to declare matches with outcomes they don't like as stomps

This happens already.

Okay so I'm back.

  • Character X has one move that they always, 100% open with and it kills Character Y no matter what.
This ignores the possibility of Character Y having something comparable to Character X. Say for example Mewtwo starts with mindhax right off the bat and Zeref with Death hax and no one resists the other's hax. They open with that, who wins? None. It's inconclusive since we can't tell who does shoot first. IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE before someone tries to debunk this.

  • Character X has one move that kills Character Y, but they don't open with it, or don't use it every time they fight.
This isn't a stomp. It's a character's fault for not using what would give them the win. Saitama could whoop Bug Eaten with a finger flick but he doesn't start punching or even attacking in-character so Bug Eaten capitalizes that and kills Saitama. Is that a stomp in anyone's favour? No, they both have chances of winning. It's not fair at most because Saitama doesn't lead with his advantage.

  • Character X has one move that kills Character Y, but it doesn't outpace any of the dozen or so ways in which Character Y can kill Character X.
One-Trick Ponies versus Hax Walls. If the latter doesn't resist the OTP's move then he loses but if even that is either resisted or tanked then the match is bad because X wouldn't win even using his special movement.

I also don't like the "a character should have an established percent of victory to say a match up is not a stomp" argument. That's incredibly subjective. I could say that Char. X has 1% chance of victory and as such is a stomp even if he has something that'd give him the win against Char. Y.

Now what I agree here is to close (but no change the rules unnecessarily) are those matchups where a character's win condition comes from something REALLY OoC (Jotaro phasing hearts for example) in matchups w/o bloodlust. This comes from Jotaro vs Machoke. There's literally no way Jotaro would win in-character because he's clearly inferior and the only way to win is via something he hasn't done in-character against someone who's not himself. These are the kind of matchup that shouldn't be done. It's more of a mismatch or something needs to be changed in the match set rules.

But I disagree with adding/editing any rules. There's no need to change nor add anything to Stomp's description.
 
And I also don't think widening the definition because people are not happy with it is gonna solve much. That just sounds like giving a lot more ammo for people to fire arguments of stomp this or that because of matches they don't like, which is totally a thing already.

Even the extremes being used as examples should fall under common sense, because not every match with a low chance of one side winning is "a thunder may fall on the same place twice before this dude actually nets a win". Like Dargoo said, how many decisive matches have one side dead 99.9% percent of the time? Or 90%? This just feels like a measure that would make finding good matches all the harder as well.
 
Overlord775 said:
Ban's litteral only chance to win is to istantly use Zero Sign, which is extremely OoC character for him do to against a random opponent, and on top of that he only has a 50% of winning even if he does that as Momo's seal is though based too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because Ban punching Momo with the 7-B vs 8-B difference isn't something he'd do in character. He doesn't even need the Zero Sign.
 
@Dargoo

I'd rather leave it to a vote at this point tbh. We've been through stomps so many times that discussing it has gotten dull. Let people vote and the rule can be made.

I posted my stance on stomps above, and that's what I'm sticking to.
 
Calaca Vs said:
Yeah, because Ban punching Momo with the 7-B vs 8-B difference isn't something he'd do in character. He doesn't even need the Zero Sign.
Click to expand...
Momo istantly seals in character, which is though based and istant

aka Ban tring anything other than Zero Sign will get him killed

he doesn't even have the slightest chance to get close enought to punch her

Hax >>> AP
 
I honestly think popularity contests are very bad in these situations, especially when it comes to changing a rule that, if changed, will result in a lot more people abusing it even more than now to scream stomp when their favourite character doesn't win a fight. It will lead to a lot more shitstorms than what it is right now if you give it more leeway.
 
I mean the same can go for people purposely making matches that are clearly unfair, but use the word "Decisive" to bypass it. So looking at it, both have their big pros and cons.
 
Despite him having the range advantage.

FFS, just look at the page. One tap and Momo's dead.

Of course Hax is better than AP, but you're trying to sound like Ban's only wincon is stealing her heart which isn't true at all.

Ogbunabali makes a good point. This is why I'm against adding or editting the rules, because there's people who already complains about some matches just because his/her favourite character loses and making any changes will give them more options to stretch arguments in order to not get the L.
 
Except those are pretty niche situations compared to the amount of times stomps threads have been declared that resulted in situations like these. Also using "decisive" as a bypass to a stomp is easier to be taken care of as it is right now with using case by case basis, rather than giving even more power to potential trolls.
 
I'll just make the poll already so the majority can decide and we can be done with this quickly


Should the chances be done ?

Yes
5

No
23


The poll was created at 20:31 on February 5, 2019, and so far 28 people voted.
Please wait, submitting your vote...
 
I just want to point out that all this rule would do is allow people to look at a match with a character they like see the character is losing and then say "They don't do that in character all the time so this is a stomp" and then have the match closed

I can think of a few people who would like that to be the case
 
People making matches with bad "it's decisive, not a stomp" reasoning is much easier to knock right then and there than applying changes that honestly lead to potentiall more problems and have no assurance of changing anything.

Like, again, how common are these "astronomically low chance of winning" matches? Don't point out stuff without precedents.
 
Overlord775 said:
Ban vs Momo is an exemple of what i mean

Ban's litteral only chance to win is to istantly use Zero Sign, which is extremely OoC character for him do to against a random opponent, and on top of that he only has a 50% of winning even if he does that as Momo's seal is though based too.

if he tries anything else or even has 1 second thought he will just get sealed 100% of the time

So the chances of Ban winning are borderline none, but yet people argue the match isn't a stomp because of the teoretical winning scenario
Click to expand...
It isn't out of character. When he took his opponent seriously, he used it right from the start, ringed her neck, and pulled out her hearts. I have corrected you and provided examples but you keep lying about this. It being 50/50 if he takes it seriously isnt a bad thing. Ban would be just as likely to win if he took it seriously, so it isn't a stomp.


The only reason is due to his character, but if he were bloodlusted or given intel he would be just as likely to win. That is not a stomp if character is what stops him from using his win conditions
 
Iapitus The Impaler said:
Overlord775 wrote:
It isn't out of character. When he took his opponent seriously, he used it right from the start, ringed her neck, and pulled out her hearts. I have corrected you and provided examples but you keep lying about this. It being 50/50 if he takes it seriously isnt a bad thing. Ban would be just as likely to win if he took it seriously, so it isn't a stomp
Click to expand...
Snatch is not a vinning condiction there.

Momo wins with a thought, so snatch, which is action based, is useless.

Only Zero Sign, which is thoughb based and turns him untrackable, will do the trick.

But he never used it in a one-on-one fight ever
 
@Ogun

I disagree, both are very common, either way, moving on.

How about this...seeing as I am actually willing to discuss and am not in a crappy/lazy mood any longer...sorry about that...especially if I was unreasonable.

Instead of making a rule, how about we expand the current rule.

"A Stomp thread is when one character is immediately able to win against another, whether it is via battlefield removal, incapacitation or killing, with the opponent having no chance to retort with their own abilities or statistics. Of course certain requirements to being deemed a stomp may change on a case-by-case basis. Due to the nature of threads terms such as "Stomp" and "Decisive" can be misused in order to either keep one's favorite character from getting a loss on their profile or to excuse blatantly unfair matches in order to get wins/losses on a character's profile. As such whether the match is a stomp or not should be discussed on the thread."

This is a start.

NOTE: This was typed awhile ago..just got the chance to send it.
 
Overlord775 said:
Snatch is not a vinning condiction there.

Momo wins with a thought, so snatch, which is action based, is useless.

Only Zero Sign, which is thoughb based and turns him untrackable, will do the trick.

But he never used it in a one-on-one fight ever
Click to expand...
I stopped claiming snatch alone was a win condition after I was corrected the first time. Don't strawman me. I do, however, claim that Zero Sign to Organ steal or neck ring, is.


That doesn't matter. He used it when he knew his opponents, whether one or multiple, were threats. Him deciding not to use it against Momo is his own fault, and doesn't make it a stomp in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Second22
Dandadan - Speed standard
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
Shiraito983
Valid Multiplier??
Replies
1
Views
521
DavidTPPM
DavidTPPM
DontTalkDT
Sakura Level Cap Tournament (8-B and lower)
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
MysticBrawler
Concerns about the new Tier 0
Replies
3
Views
2K
TheUltimateGod4
Question about Durability and Throwing
Replies
5
Views
408
Queen_Dasania
Back
Top